Sanity check main inspector for a session

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that it opens the inspector and evaluates process.pid, returning the pid on success. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the inspector remains open), error scenarios, or authorization needs, making it adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and then provides usage context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is mostly complete for a simple ping-like tool. It explains the action, return value, and a usage condition. However, it lacks details on potential errors or whether the inspector is closed afterwards.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'id' described as 'Session id.' The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool opens the Node inspector on the session's main process and evaluates process.pid, returning the pid. It is specific, uses a verb+resource structure, and differentiates from siblings by mentioning a specific use case (when get_app_paths times out).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says to use this tool when get_app_paths times out to isolate if the inspector is the problem. This provides clear context and a conditional usage guide, though it does not mention when not to use or list alternatives beyond the sibling.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.